Middle Ground

Not too long ago, an acquaintance stopped by the office to say hello. We chatted for a bit and when he asked how our workload was, we explained that it couldn’t be better and that we’ve got some exceptional jobs in the hopper. In talking shop, he mentioned the names of some very exclusive architects here in town doing extremely high-end work. We nodded politely and wrapped up the conversation (as we’ve got work to do). And then he said the strangest thing. On his way out the door he exclaimed “keep up the good work and you’ll be doing that high-end stuff someday too!”

The door shut and we all glanced at each other with that what-just-happened look and simultaneously murmured “we really hope not”.

It’s always struck us as odd that the typical path of most architects involves doing work that is increasingly more expensive and precious. There’s a disturbing expectation around architecture that the further along the professional trajectory a firm gets, the more exclusive their work should become. The fact of the matter is that it’s simply not the road we’re on; we’re blazing a different trail.

Until that moment, we hadn’t really expressed this in our office culture but felt that it was worth intentionally doing so; we truly enjoy designing and building real places for real people to live and work in. Working on architecture that is necessary and integral to the society functioning around us is important; it inspires us. We’re not excited by the endeavor of creating residential museums for society’s elite. And that’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with doing so, it’s just not what gets us out of bed each morning excited to do what we do. We’re much more engaged in making simple and clean modernism for folks in our various communities who are in a similar place in life as ourselves.

Our projects typically cost between $175 and $225 per square foot, not $1000 per square foot; and we like it that way. It’s not our goal to work up to the “high-end” or exclusive work; we’re already doing exactly what we’ve been trained to do. We’re doing what we want to be doing.

To us, doing inspiring, modern work that provides high value is one of the main ingredients of a successful project. It’s not the cheapest work out there, but it’s nowhere near the most expensive. Our simple assertion is that we need to provide our client’s with top value while creating modern architecture, and this makes sense for people who live (and work) and have both feet on the ground. It brings pleasure and offers new opportunities to people who are concerned with good design. And this is precisely where we like to operate. This “middleground” is satisfying, meaningful and useful. And we’re planning on staying right here.

23 Comments

Kudos to you guys for keeping it real.
I would consider the practice of ‘high-end’ architecture as being responsible, considerate, progressive and mature. In my opinion, most architects and their ‘high profile’ products completely miss the mark on most if not all of these points. Being responsible means being efficient in material usage, finances spent and a having thorough understanding of function, North America is littered with examples of architecture by our so-called ‘starchitects’ which completely fail as spaces designed to serve a function, use exotic materials at extreme cost and are detailed incredibly poorly, all neglecting the end use of the building. Being considerate means to have a complete understanding of the conditions for which a building has been asked. Similar to being responsible, being considerate speaks to an understanding of programmatic needs and uses of space, understanding the value of the upfront investment as, in most cases, a long-term investment in space and building performance. In most instances, notion of considerate architecture speaks to a mature understanding of the role we play in society as place-makers. I am of the opinion that in most instances of ‘high-profile’ architecture, maturity speaks to the individual architect’s sensibilities towards their own lot in life and is reflective of their desire to, above all else, leave a mark that celebrates themselves rather than the contents of the vessel so to speak.
High-end architecture is the production of buildings that exist as more than a graphic, are detailed incredibly well, are responsible to a client’s budget and program requirements and activate and are catalysts to a place, urban or rural, I think your work speaks to these beliefs.

I could not have said it better myself. I love your guys work and have been following you for a while now.
I would say that I have modeled a lot of my corporate and personal philosophy’s around the same concepts. I love working for real people doing projects that are taken more for the interest and challenge hey bring in than the all mighty dollar.
Keep up the good work.

Amen. i agree through and though – however – if confronted with a commission to do a large home for a client with deep pockets (but very good social and environmental intention,) and a $1500 / square foot budget, would you turn it down? just wondering.

Very interested in a response to the previous comment. At our firm we enjoy doing work for “real people” with an eye for function, budget and beauty. We haven’t gotten the $1500/SF job knocking at our door (yet), but it’s an interesting thought experiment to consider. How would we respond? How much, if any, would we push back on the subtle assumption that that expensive = good design?

@gsid & Tyler -that is the million dollar question (pun intended). It’s something we struggle with and (maybe fortunately) those types of clients don’t typically seek us out. However, we’ve been in similar situations a few times in the past decade and an important aspect for us is whether the client is open minded to different design philosophies. Can they be enrolled in the idea of building a smaller but more effective footprint for instance? Are they open to the idea that a better end product could actually be produced by building less and even spending less. Conversations like that occur before a contract is signed –sometimes it works out and other times it doesn’t. But either way we need to stick to our guns.

i’m currently in the masters program at university of utah. i find it curious that so many professors & outside crits suggest we “look at” the andos, holls, omas & the list goes on & on of other starchitects. not only does this seem like an abdication of the responsibility to instruct by telling me to review some master architects master stroke … but it fails to capture the essence of your post above that i so fully appreciate. thx for putting this one up

To follow up on the ? From @gsid & Tyler: why do you think that such clients with deep pockets don’t come your way? And why is there such value to you in lowering costs? And do you mean footage costa or overall costs? Your firm is very effective with systems and solutions that you repeat in your work, lowering your design time costs and having a tighter estimate on prospective construction costs, so how would you approach a project where a “high end” clients wants some custom solutions?
As an aside, at our firm we have a variety of clients’ resources, from deep pockets to shallow, and even the deep pockets want to save money wherever possible, it’s really just a question of where they (and we insist) value is attributed.
We’d really value your thoughts about what it is about high end projects or the precociousness that initiated the discussion. Maybe specifically, is t the client, or the architect?

I just read this article on James Dyson. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576653190142882736.html where he talks about expensive doesn’t always mean good design. His products are “high end” but at least they are designed to work.

Wow, I just had a near indentical conversation with a past client yesterday.
While working with my clients on a wonderful remodel of a mid-century treasure with a modest budget, we were watching the construction of their neighbor’s house-a house on the lake with a considerably larger dollar per foot cost. The house was beautifully done with nice (and expensive) materials on an expensive lot by an architect known for doing higher end work.
After noticing the house on the lake was featured in the latest high end design magazine, a conversation insued with resulted in the client saying “someday you will have the type of client with the money to do a house like that and it will get in that magazine.”
I found myself explaining to the them that I get much more joy out of working with “modest” budgets for engaged clients such as them…that good design for me by definition was exposing beautiful,creative, honest, and appropriate solutions in the face of budget and context. Then we went on and on in a conversation very similar to that you have presented above.
Admittedly, I spent that evening’s drive home analyzing my ego and dissecting the thought-“Well, I can design like that too with a budget of a gazillion dollars per square foot.”
Obviously I appreciate and agree with the Buildllc stance. Thanks for sharing.
If we all started a school based on these ideas what would it be called?

@ Mgrummer –we don’t think that such a clientele comes our way because the firms that typically cater to ‘high-end work’ are very skilled at marketing to this demographic. We mean this in a complimentary way; these firms have worked hard, have developed a brand name, and have developed marketing strategies over decades to appeal to this demographic.
It’s not that the “value” is exclusively about lowering costs. It’s that we’ve structured our firm to provide greater value for dollars spent. I suppose you could say that with a $1,000 per square foot budget that the value potential is much higher. But on residential work, we’ve noticed that when the “budget” is that high, money is typically spent more frivolously than pragmatically.
Square footage costs and overall costs both play a role. It makes sense that the smaller and smarter a project is, the higher the cost per square foot would be –but the overall cost would still be reasonable because of a smaller footprint.
“Your firm is very effective with systems and solutions that you repeat in your work, lowering your design time costs and having a tighter estimate on prospective construction costs, so how would you approach a project where a “high end” clients wants some custom solutions? “
First of all, we may determine that we’re not the best fit for them. If we (the clients and BUILD) decided that it is a good fit; there would probably still be a “kit-of-parts” that we’ve developed on past projects that would play into the design to some degree (even if it’s only as a base or departure point). We would probably define certain areas where new custom architectures and details are being explored and perhaps work on an hourly contract rather than a percentage or fixed fee.
What initiated the discussion more than anything else is the perception that people (the public, other architects, the media) have about architects and success; the erroneous belief that to be more and more successful as an architect you have to work on increasingly expensive projects. We see it almost opposite of this; the more experience and competent of an architect you are, the more you should be able to do with less budget.
Thanks for the questions – exactly the kind of dialogue we appreciate on the blog.

@mod -if we had a school based on this philosophy I’m pretty sure we get to keep “Architecture” since designing the budget is just as important as the aesthetics. It’s those high-end guys that can come up with a new name for themselves -LOL!

I have a fairly wide range of work, from very expensive to very modest. I think that range provides for different kinds of experimentation, whether with more costly materials or the discipline of a tight budget. Remember that whatever your work, your drawings are the filter by which the capital of the wealthy is redistributed to the rest of the world (plumbers, carpenters, etc.). Make that work worthwhile.

Build LLC, thank you for your well-written, truthful and concise blog! As a recent architecture graduate with a long way to go in the profession, I can attest to the disappointment in the fact that most example buildings we studied in studio were made by starchitects and students were highly encouraged to work for large corporate firms rather than considering public interest design/design for ‘normal people’ as a more relevant option. The architecture profession desperately needs a mindset change, and your firm’s proud ‘middleground’ niche is an extremely refreshing example to all young architects who don’t really buy the corporate pressure.

Perfection. It’s inspiring to me to know there are people out there like you, who are like me too, who love the simplicity of a well designed space/building/etc. – knowing that dollars doesn’t necessarily equal good design. I like to think that there is someone for everyone, so my hope is that the cliental who appreciate my esthetic find me, and the cliental who want a mega-mansion, find someone else. I enjoy the level at which I work and the folks I work with. I am intrigued and excited by the design process and what is right for the client’s lifestyle.

It oddly excites me that your firm is familiar with Dan Rockhill/Studio 804. I hadn’t heard of him until he spoke at my school (IIT) and was easily one of, if not, the most energizing speakers I’ve ever seen. I would Love to have a career trajectory similar to his.